- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:41:45 -0500
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Henry Thompson <ht@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 19:13 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > On 2 Apr 2008, at 18:53, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > Please help me remember to follow up; i.e. find > > test cases that distinguish the two designs and find out > > what requirements, if any, motivate the differences. > > Sorry for jumping in on this like this (I saw this on -archive), but > the answer is the normal one: there is a large amount of content that > relies on the existing algorithms. There are known bugs in the > algorithms, but I do have tests for what is currently there (at least > for the numeric ones) at <http://hg.gsnedders.com/php-html-5-direct/file/tip/tests/numbersTest > > (see the README file in the same folder for more info). Thanks for the pointer to test materials; if you can isolate any tests where the XSD design would lead to different results, I'd be much obliged. Likewise, if you can be more specific about "large amounts of content". > I'd massively dislike to see HTML 5 using different algorithms in > different places, so I firmly believe we should just stick with one > algorithm everywhere, which due to the afore mentioned already > deployed content, must be similar to what we already have. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 18:42:13 UTC